[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Wed Feb 26 04:46:08 UTC 2014

No but we are at the other extreme.  There are infinite points between and
we need to find the happy balance with our awesome and excellent ideals and
the rest of the world and all of humanity.  Ideally everyone else adopts
these rules and is just nice to everyone.
On Feb 25, 2014 8:21 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> So, in other words, you see the world in black and white.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The same thing can be said of the opposite and this is where we are now.
> >
> > On Feb 25, 2014 8:20 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm with you.
> >>
> >> What I'm pointing out is that -- and I do like most of the rules and
> >> policies that have been made so far -- our culture is a work in
> >> progress.  Taking all existing policy decisions as sacrosanct puts
> >> Noisebridge into a more and more fragile and rigid stance where it
> >> can't adapt or improve.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I would say anything that has passed consensus is also a rule until
> >> > consensus changes it.   I would also say that the harassment policy is
> >> > common sense and speaks of treating others with respect which falls
> >> > under be
> >> > excellent but due to differing definitions of excellence we needed to
> be
> >> > more specific since we suck at policing ourselves.   Ideally we should
> >> > have
> >> > other members stepping in and saying stop being unexpected but
> everyone
> >> > hates confrontation and when someone confronts someone we have tons of
> >> > bike
> >> > shedding and victim blaming. Not great For Us And Our Image.  I hate
> >> > being
> >> > the laughing stock of the hackerspa ce com.unity.   I hate that we
> >> > couldn't
> >> > make a safe enough space for everyone to feel comfortable so another
> >> > space
> >> > had to be made with more logic.
> >> >
> >> > On Feb 25, 2014 7:50 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I would say that the only permanently binding "rule" at Noisebridge
> is:
> >> >>
> >> >> Be Excellent to Each Other
> >> >>
> >> >> Everything else is an experiment.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I would say whatever is in the bylaws and on the wiki is what it
> is.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > believe that means a hackerspa ce that has a community that has
> >> >> > issues
> >> >> > dealing with things due to a variety of issues one being victim
> >> >> > blaming
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > others being unable to effectively deal with most basic issues.
> >> >> > What
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > you think noisebridge is?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2014 7:38 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> First off -- empirically speaking, the harassment policy is being
> >> >> >> vehemently NOT ignored, but rather vehemently enforced.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What you're observing is the tumult that's occurring because this
> >> >> >> policy and subsequent process are taking the place of
> >> >> >> community resolution.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What you should be asking yourself is whether Noisebridge should
> be
> >> >> >> thought of as a "community" or as a hack-space vending machine.
>  If
> >> >> >> the former, then we need to take better care of each other and not
> >> >> >> characterize the world as black and white.  If the latter, then
> hey,
> >> >> >> why don't we close the space at 11pm and hire security guards.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --Naomi
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com
> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > I am going to take this thread as the harassment policy has
> failed
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > being blatently ignored.   Should we just not have one anymore?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2014 6:53 PM, "Ronald Cotoni" <setient at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Huh.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2014 6:48 PM, "Naomi Gmail" <pnaomi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Uh, maybe some input from the involved parties?!? before
> leaping
> >> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >> >>> conclusions like that?
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com
> >
> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Then this is pretty clear that it is harassment.   Right?
> What
> >> >> >> >>> more
> >> >> >> >>> information do we need?
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:32 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I don't think mediation between Tom and Lee is a good idea.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I mean Lee seems to want Toms attention for some reason.
> >> >> >> >>>> --
> >> >> >> >>>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Ronald Cotoni
> >> >> >> >>>> <setient at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Can you help lee with getting a consensus item on the docket
> >> >> >> >>>>> or
> >> >> >> >>>>> perhaps
> >> >> >> >>>>> mediation?
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:23 PM, "Naomi Gmail" <pnaomi at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I could have blocked as well, but thought MCT had it
> covered.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Honestly I just didn't think the proposal would go
> through. I
> >> >> >> >>>>>> see
> >> >> >> >>>>>> it
> >> >> >> >>>>>> as a failure of community and an abuse of bureaucracy that
> it
> >> >> >> >>>>>> did
> >> >> >> >>>>>> go
> >> >> >> >>>>>> through. So I am coming tonight to learn more.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Lee Sonko <lee at lee.org>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> MCT agreed to proxy-block for me several weeks ago. He was
> at
> >> >> >> >>>>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>>>> meeting 2 weeks ago when the matter was expected to be
> >> >> >> >>>>>> discussed,
> >> >> >> >>>>>> however it
> >> >> >> >>>>>> wasn't brought up. Last week MCT wasn't at the meeting so I
> >> >> >> >>>>>> had
> >> >> >> >>>>>> no
> >> >> >> >>>>>> representation.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I work Tuesday evenings so am generally unable to attend
> >> >> >> >>>>>> meetings
> >> >> >> >>>>>> but
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I found a substitute tonight.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I hope we can all discuss this matter together.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Lee
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:07 PM, "Ronald Cotoni" <
> setient at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Lee was aware and Lee chose for a long time to not come to
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meetings
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> or get someone else to proxy block.  I suggest you get a
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> deeper
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> understanding of how consensus works and why it is the way
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> it
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> is.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> It was
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> to give him time, which he ignored sadly and has to deal
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> with
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> consequences now.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:00 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> The second person who answers by come to a meeting.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> These answers are fluid, which is the reason why Johnny
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> asked
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> for
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> clarification on GitHub.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> We need a better understanding and conceptualizer for
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> banning.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> I made my case with Lee. It seems to me he was just being
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> annoying
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> to Tom. Now, others do annoying things to me all the
> time,
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> but
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> I
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> don't
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> exclude.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> The problem here is a failure to communicate, to ask, to
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> "participate", to educate and to help.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Indeed, the community is fractured. Indeed, people can be
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> annoying
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Indeed, people can do bad things.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> But, goodness is fragile. Moreover, exclusion is not the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> answer
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> for
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> our problems. Inquisitions to rid ourselves of
> alternatives
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> forecloses
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> opportunity for us all.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> And movements fail. . . .
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ronald Cotoni
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <setient at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Come to a meeting.  Read the bylaws and look at the
> wiki.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> These
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> questions can be answered by those things
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 5:47 PM, "Charles Tang" <
> cjtang1 at asu.edu>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Is active member defined be the label "member" or is it
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> define
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> by
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> those who are "active."
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Or is there really a mythical "active member"
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Adrian Chadd
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 25 February 2014 17:42, Darius Garza
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <313kid at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > "A ban from the Noisebridge space may be a useful
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > social
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > punishment for a
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > social crime"
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > Noisebridge is a lot of things, but it certainly
> isn't
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > up
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > to
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > anyone to use
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > it as a "social punishment" tool.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ... noisebridge is apparently whatever the active
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> membership
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> decide it
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> is. I thought that was the point.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> -a
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Naomi Theora Most
> >> >> >> naomi at nthmost.com
> >> >> >> +1-415-728-7490
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> skype: nthmost
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Naomi Theora Most
> >> >> naomi at nthmost.com
> >> >> +1-415-728-7490
> >> >>
> >> >> skype: nthmost
> >> >>
> >> >> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Naomi Theora Most
> >> naomi at nthmost.com
> >> +1-415-728-7490
> >>
> >> skype: nthmost
> >>
> >> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140225/00e6aa14/attachment.html>